01A10659
06-13-2001
Lawrence McCurdy, Complainant, v. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, (Food and Drug Administration), Agency.
Lawrence McCurdy v. Department of Health and Human Services
01A10659
June 13, 2001
.
Lawrence McCurdy,
Complainant,
v.
Tommy G. Thompson,
Secretary,
Department of Health and Human Services,
(Food and Drug Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10659
Agency No. B01698
DECISION
Complainant initiated an appeal from: (1) the agency's final decision
on the merits of his complaint (FAD (Merits)), to the extent the agency
found no discrimination on one of his two allegations, and (2) the
agency's final decision on damages (FAD (Damages)), concerning the level
of the agency's award of compensatory damages, involving the allegation in
which the agency found discrimination. The agency, in its FAD (Merits),
found that it violated Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., when it
discriminated against complainant on the basis of his disability when
his requests for reasonable accommodation were subjected to a series
of unreasonable delays, but that it did not subject complainant to a
hostile work environment based on his disability. The agency, in its FAD
(Damages), awarded complainant a total of $6,300 in compensatory damages.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a GS-13 Computer Specialist with the Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Rockville, Maryland.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on December 9, 1997.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of his
right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge or alternatively, to receive a FAD (Merits) by
the agency. Complainant requested that the agency issue an FAD (Merits).
In November 1996, complainant was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease.
In January of 1997, complainant informed his supervisors of the disease,
told them that the disease made writing and typing difficult, requested
accommodation to reduce the amount of typing and writing, and provided
a doctor's report in support of the request. Complainant specifically
requested a laptop computer and a laser pointer. The disease also
affected his walking, slowing it to a shuffle. The record contains
a number of doctors' reports, most of which were prepared pursuant to
the agency's requests to complainant for documentation supporting his
request for accommodation. The doctors' reports confirm complainant's
Parkinson's Disease and the pain and difficulty associated with writing,
computer work, and fine hand movements.
Complainant contended that management ignored his requests for
assistance; assigned him duties management knew would exacerbate his
condition (increased the amount of typing and writing); criticized his
performance; denied him career enhancing opportunities; treated him in a
condescending, negative and cruel manner; increased scrutiny over him,
even castigating him for taking leave to visit the doctor; threatened
that his vacations were in jeopardy if he did not reconcile project
due dates with vacation dates; sent him e-mails concerning his alleged
inappropriate handling of leave; required him to obtain approval to
earn small amounts of credit time in a manner different than other staff;
excluded him from contributing to committees and initiatives on an ongoing
basis; downgraded his assignments; and reprimanded him for requesting
accommodation. These agency actions are the basis of complainant's hostile
work environment allegation. As a result, complainant indicated that he
experienced physical pain, an exacerbation of his Parkinson's Disease,
significant emotional pain, and embarrassment.
In November 1997, complainant received a tape recorder and laptop
computer from the agency for use in his work. On April 15, 1998,
complainant was given voice recognition software from the agency for
use in his work. During the period from January 1997 to November 1997,
complainant contacted a number of management officials, including his
first- and second-line supervisors, notifying them of his impairment and
suggesting various other accommodations, in addition to those ultimately
granted, such as a part-time stenographer, soft deadlines, flexibility
of methodology on projects with low writing/typing burden, and project
assignments with low writing/typing requirements.
In its FAD (Merits) (April 27, 2000), the agency concluded: (1)
that it had discriminated against complainant by failing to provide
him with a reasonable accommodation, but that (2) complainant had not
been subjected to a hostile working environment. The agency found that
complainant was a person with a disability under the Rehabilitation
Act. The agency concluded it discriminated against complainant on the
basis of his disability when it failed to provide complainant with
timely reasonable accommodations for his condition. More specifically,
the FAD found that the agency failed to meet its obligation under the
Rehabilitation Act to engage in the interactive dialogue necessary to
adequately address the accommodation requests made by the complainant.
The FAD acknowledged that at no time did any agency official explain
the accommodation process to the complainant, and that the agency failed
to explain, in any meaningful way, why it needed the extensive level of
medical documentation it required. The agency acknowledged complainant's
numerous attempts to obtain various accommodations, and that its requests
for medical documentation, when taken as a whole, were inappropriate.
However, the agency rejected complainant's hostile work environment
allegation. Although the agency found some of complainant's allegations
were valid (e.g., supervisor's informal reprimand of complainant
for seeking assistance from higher level officials with his request
for accommodation and the agency's persistence in requiring medical
documentation for his requested accommodation), the agency concluded
that complainant failed to establish that he was subjected to harassment
which was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work
environment. The agency concluded that many of complainant's allegations
were not supported by any evidence other than complainant's assertions.
In its FAD (Damages)(October 4, 2000), the agency awarded complainant: (1)
$1,300 in pecuniary compensatory damages and; (2) $5,000 in nonpecuniary
compensatory damages. The agency found that complainant showed that he
suffered emotional distress as a direct result of the agency's failure
to provide him with timely reasonable accommodation for his condition
for 14 months. This emotional distress was manifested as anxiety,
depression, weight gain, insomnia, fear of being fired and losing
his career, frustration and humiliation. The agency also found that
although complainant had a pre-existing underlying condition, there was
no evidence that complainant's condition was exacerbated as a result of
the discrimination.
On appeal, complainant contends that the FAD (Merits) erred in finding
that complainant had not been subjected to a hostile working environment.
According to complainant, since disclosing his disability to management on
January 15, 1997, he had been systematically and continuously harassed,
intimidated, and demeaned by his superiors, particularly his immediate
supervisor. Complainant essentially reiterated his contentions made
before the agency.
In appealing the FAD (Damages), complainant does not dispute the
agency's award of $1,300 in pecuniary compensatory damages. However,
complainant submits that the agency's award of $5,000 in nonpecuniary
compensatory damages is inadequate. Complainant thus argues that the
agency inflicted significant physical and emotional pain on him, that
the pain has not been adequately remedied, and that an award of $175,000
would be appropriate.
Complainant cites to two cases in support of his position. Carpenter
v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (July 17, 1995)
($75,000 in compensatory damages for the agency's failure to provide
reasonable accommodation exacerbating the complainant's bronchial asthma)
and Shea v. Icelandair, 925 F. Supp. 1014 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ($175,000 in
compensatory damages under Title VII (demotion based on age and national
origin) due, in part, to the exacerbation of plaintiff's Parkinson's
Disease).
Complainant thus emphasizes that he had to struggle with the agency's
management for reasonable accommodation day after day for almost 15
months. Complainant argues he was therefore compelled to undertake the
difficult and painful tasks of manual typing and writing. In addition to
physical pain, complainant argues he suffered emotional harm. He further
argues he was depressed, despondent, and withdrawn.
The agency requests that we affirm its FAD(Merits) and FAD(Damages).
With respect to the FAD (Merits), the agency argues that on the issue of
hostile environment, complainant's appeal was untimely. The agency
points out that its merits decision was issued to complainant on April 27,
2000 along with his appeal rights, which complainant assertedly received
on or about May 5, 2000. Complainant had 30 days to appeal any part of
the decision, but waited until November 6, 2000, when he appealed the
FAD (Damages) on the issue of compensatory damages. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.403. Moreover, the agency submits that even if the complainant's
appeal was timely, many of complainant's statements in support of his
hostile environment claim are unsupported by evidence. Accordingly,
the agency again argues that the evidence does not demonstrate that
complainant was subjected to sufficiently severe or pervasive behavior
to constitute a hostile working environment.
With respect to the FAD (Damages), the agency submits that complainant's
case is more akin to those cases in which plaintiffs were awarded
$5,000 as compensation for emotional distress, which may have included
depression, insomnia, emotional fatigue, and nightmares that were
related to a hostile working environment lasting approximately a year
and a half. The agency cites two cases in support of its position.
White v. Department of Veteran's Affairs, EEOC No, 01950342 (June 13,
1997) ($5,000 awarded for emotional distress which included depression,
emotional fatigue, nightmares, and insomnia that were related to
hostile environment lasting approximately a year and a half) and Bensen
v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC No. 01952854 (June 26, 1994) ($5,000
awarded complainant; his relatives and colleagues offered testimony
regarding embarrassment and humiliation complainant suffered at work as
a result of denial of promotional opportunities, suspension, and other
adverse actions). The agency especially emphasizes that complainant
did not submit any testimony to corroborate his assertion that his
condition was exacerbated by the agency' actions. In the agency's view,
complainant's symptoms surfaced and developed as part of the natural
progression of his Parkinson's Disease.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Complainant's Appeal of the FAD (Merits)
We agree with the agency that complainant's appeal of the April 27,
2000, FAD (Merits) decision was untimely. The agency's April 27,
2000, decision indicates that it was the agency's final decision on
complainant's complaints. FAD (Merits) Decision at 1. The April 27
decision gave complainant a Notice of EEOC Appeal Rights, directing that
if complainant was dissatisfied with �this final order (Final Agency
Decision)�, complainant had the right to appeal within thirty calendar
days of receipt of the correspondence. FAD (Merits) Decision at 20.
The decision stated that there was an enclosed EEOC Form 573, EEOC
Notice of Appeal/Petition to be used to indicate what was being appealed.
FAD (Merits) Decision at 20.
The agency's October 4, 2000, decision indicates that it was the
agency's final decision on complainant's claim for compensatory damages.
FAD (Damages) at 1. The October 4 decision gave complainant a Notice of
EEOC Appeal Rights, directing that if complainant was dissatisfied with
�this final agency decision�, complainant had the right to appeal within
thirty calendar days of receipt of the correspondence. FAD (Damages)
Decision at 6. The decision also stated that there was an enclosed EEOC
Form 573, EEOC Notice of Appeal/Petition to be used to indicate what
was being appealed. FAD (Damages) Decision at 6.
The Commission's regulations state that appeals �must be filed within 30
days of receipt of the dismissal, final action or decision.� 29 C.F.R. �
1614.402(a). The FAD (Merits) Decision indicated it was a final decision.
See also EEO MD-110 at 9-2 (agency required to attach a copy of EEOC
Form 573 to all decisions, actions, and dismissals of equal employment
complaints) (emphasis added). Since the EEOC Form 573 is a notice of
appeal rights, it would be a questionable practice to require attachment
of the notice for which an appeal was not required. Furthermore,
the appeal rights were clearly set forth in the FAD (Merits) Decision.
Complainant does not argue that he was not given the appeal rights in
an appropriate manner.
Accordingly, the agency's FAD (Merits) must stand. As previously
indicated, the agency, in its FAD (Merits), found that it violated the
Rehabilitation Act, when it discriminated against complainant on the
basis of his disability when his requests for reasonable accommodation
were subjected to a series of unreasonable delays, but that it did not
subject complainant to a hostile work environment based on his disability.
Complainant's Appeal of the FAD (Damages)
Section 102(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the CRA 1991), Stat. 1071,
Pub. L. No. 102-166, codified as 42 U.S.C. � 1981a, authorizes an award
of compensatory damages as part of the "make whole" relief for intentional
discrimination in violation of Title VII, as amended. Section 1981a(b)(2)
indicates that compensatory damages do not include back pay, interest on
back pay, or any other type of equitable relief authorized by Title VII.
Section 1981a(b)(3) limits the total amount of compensatory damages
that may be awarded to each complaining party for future pecuniary
losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss
of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses, according to the
number of persons employed by the respondent employer. The limit for an
employer with more than 500 employees, such as the agency, is $300,000.
42 U.S.C. � 1981a(b)(3)(D).
Non-pecuniary losses are losses that are not subject to precise
quantification, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to professional
standing, injury to character and reputation, injury to credit standing,
and loss of health. Complainant's appeal is limited to his non-pecuniary
compensatory damages.
The Commission notes that damage awards for emotional harm are difficult
to determine and that there are no definitive rules governing the amount
to be awarded in given cases. Non-pecuniary damages must be limited
to the sums necessary to compensate the injured party for actual harm,
even where the harm is intangible, see, Carter v. Duncan-Higgins, Ltd.,
727 F.2d 1225 (D.C. Cir. 1994), and should take into account the severity
of the harm and the length of time that the injured party has suffered
from the harm. Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section
102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002, at 14
(July 14, 1992). A proper award must meet two goals: that it not be
�monstrously excessive� standing alone, and that it be consistent with
awards made in similar cases. See Cygnar v. City of Chicago, 865 F.2d
827, 848 (7th Cir. 1989).
Complainant requests $175,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the assessment of compensatory
damages must be based on the damage to complainant, not from the
misconduct of the agency. Complainant appears to stress the breadth of
misconduct by the agency. However, punitive damages are inappropriate
in federal sector discrimination cases. See 42 U.S.C. �1981a(b)1).
Nevertheless, complainant submits that over the course of 14 months he
suffered physical pain from writing and typing as well as emotional pain
from depression, despondency, and withdrawal. Complainant also indicates
he had problems sleeping and gained weight. Complainant especially
notes that he was afraid for his future in terms of being fired from his
job, although there is no indication that any performance evaluation,
involving complainant, was negative, or that he was otherwise advised
that he might be terminated from his job for performance deficiencies.
Additionally, as the agency emphasized, complainant did not submit any
testimony to corroborate his assertion that his condition was exacerbated
by the agency's actions. Although not required, complainant did not
present medical evidence to support his claim for damages.
A number of Commission decisions have awarded non-pecuniary
compensatory damages in cases which we compare to complainant's.
Lawrence v. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (April 18, 1996)
($3,000 in damages where complainant presented primarily non-medical
evidence that she was irritable, experienced anxiety attacks, and was
shunned by her co-workers); Rountree v. Department of Agriculture,
EEOC Appeal No. 01941906 (July 7, 1995) ($8,000 in non-pecuniary
damages where complainant received a low performance appraisal and
was denied bonus pay because of race and reprisal, medical testimony
provided regarding complainant's emotional distress, but the majority of
complainant's emotional problems were caused by factors other than the
discrimination); Jones v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01973551
(April 14, 2000)($9,000 in non-pecuniary damages based on complainant's
statements regarding interference with family and marital relations,
digestive problems, headaches, anxiety, sleeplessness, and exhaustion
resulting from agency's discrimination); Baptieste v. Air Force,
EEOC Appeal No. 01974616 (May 26, 2000) ($12,000 in non-pecuniary
damages based on complainant's and others' statements of emotional
distress due to agency's discriminatory termination, felt worthless
and depressed, negative attitude about herself and outside world,
isolated from coworkers, nausea and insomnia, intense feelings of
anxiety, irritable, had to declare bankruptcy); Bever v. Department of
Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01953949 (October 31, 1996) ($15,000 where
situational anxiety linked to ongoing harassment, medication required,
and symptoms included uncontrolled crying, weight gain, and depression);
Terrell v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EEOC Appeal
No. 01961030 (October 25, 1996) ($25,000 in non-pecuniary damages
based on �quite serious� emotional harm, lasting upwards of two years,
frequent crying, introversion, disruptions in relationships with family
and friends, suicidal thoughts, depression, sleep problems, marital
(separation from wife ensued) and financial difficulties exacerbated,
although majority problems not shown caused by discrimination); Finlay
v. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01942985 (April 29, 1997)($100,000 in
non-pecuniary damages for severe psychological injury over four years
which was expected to continue for an indeterminate time, including
ongoing depression, frequent crying, concern for physical safety, loss
of charm, lethargy, social withdrawal, concern for physical safety,
recurring nightmares and memories of harassment, a damaged marriage,
stomach distress, and headaches).
Complainant relies on the Commission's decision in Carpenter, supra .
However, as complainant acknowledges, in Carpenter that complainant's
condition was exacerbated such that it caused him to be absent from
work for two months, and he left his employment with the agency soon
thereafter. The complainant in Carpenter presented evidence from his
physicians that the agency's actions exacerbated his impairment, whereas
in the present case there is no such evidence. The Commission found
the record supported the Carpenter complainant's claim for compensatory
damages, including his request for damages attendant to embarrassment,
humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life,
loss of health, loss of consortium, and for losses associated with other
disruptions of his marital and family relationships.
Complainant also relies on a federal district court decision, Shea, supra.
The plaintiff's award in that case was reduced from $175,000 to $75,000.
925 F. Supp. at 1029. The court indicated that this was the maximum
recovery that would not �deviate materially� from awards in cases
with similar characteristics. Id. In Shea, the plaintiff's health
rapidly declined following his demotion and he required hospitalization
due to a heart condition linked to the stressful situation at work.
There was medical evidence from his physicians that the employer's actions
exacerbated his impairment. It was also pointed out that the plaintiff
experienced mental anguish from the fact that he was required to inform
over three hundred of his regular customers of his demotion and give
them his new business card indicating his diminished position. In sum,
the record was found to have substantiated the plaintiff's physical and
mental pain and suffering due to the employer's conduct.
Based on the foregoing evidence, the Commission finds that complainant
is entitled to non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $5,000. We find
that the agency's reliance on White, supra, and Bensen, supra, to be
reasonable. We also note that complainant's request was presumably based
on a finding that he was subject to a hostile work environment over the
course of fourteen months. As previously indicated, there has been no
finding of a violation involving a hostile work environment, although
some incidents involved in complainant's reasonable accommodation claim
relate also to the hostile work environment claim. The $5,000 amount
takes into account the severity and duration of the harm sustained by
complainant by the agency's actions and consideration of damage awards
reached in comparable cases. The Commission further notes that this
amount meets the goals of not being motivated by passion or prejudice,
not being �monstrously excessive� standing alone, and being consistent
with the amounts awarded in similar cases. See Cygnar, 865 F.2d at 848;
AIC Security Investigations, 823 F.Supp. at 574.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we DISMISS complainant's
appeal of the agency's final decision on the merits, AFFIRM the agency's
final decision on damages, and REMAND this case to the agency to take
remedial actions in accordance with this decision and ORDER below.
ORDER (C0900)
The agency is ordered to take the following remedial actions:
1. Within thirty calendar days of the date of this decision becomes
final, the agency shall tender to complainant $1,500 in past pecuniary
damages and $5,000 in non-pecuniary damages, a total of $6,500.
2. The agency shall take steps to ensure that all personnel specialists
are trained on the federal anti-discrimination statutes and, in
particular, on the applicable requirements regarding the agency's
obligations to individuals with disabilities, including requests for
medical documentation.
3. The agency shall take steps to ensure that all supervisors and
managers are aware of their rights and responsibilities to employees and
individuals with disabilities and the requirements of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. � 12101 et. seq, and applicable EEOC regulations that govern
their conduct with respect to covered individuals.
4. The agency shall take steps to ensure that all supervisors and
managers are aware of their rights and responsibilities to create a
work environment free from discrimination as required by the federal
anti-discrimination statutes and EEOC regulations.
5. The agency shall refrain from issuing over-broad requests for
medical information to employees. Requests for information about medical
conditions must be limited to information as set forth in EEOC Regulations
29 C.F.R. � 1630.14.
6. The agency is ordered to post a notice in accordance with the
paragraph entitled �Posting Order� below.
7. The agency shall pay complainant's reasonable attorney's fees and
costs in accordance with the paragraph entitled �Attorney's Fees� below.
8. The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance,
as provided in the statement below entitled �Implementation of the
Commission's Decision.� The report shall include evidence that the
corrective action has been implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0900)
The agency is ordered to post at its Rockville, Maryland, facility copies
of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the
agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted by the agency
within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. The agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer
at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the
Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration
of the posting period.
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0900)
If complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), he/she is entitled to an award of
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid
by the agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees
to the agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this
decision becoming final. The agency shall then process the claim for
attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0900)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of
the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right
to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order
prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29
C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively,
the complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File
A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action
for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the
complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the
complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the office of federal operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in
the complaint the person who is the official agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title.
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.
"Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the
local office, facility or department in which you work. Filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to
file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be
filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right
to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
June 13, 2001
Date